Convention for documenting admissible values of optional inputs
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Documentation
- Dominant language
- Macaulay2
- Stars
- 435
- Forks
- 297
- Avg merge
- 4d 20h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 11
Description
Is there a convention for doing this? I've seen
- Some, such as
gb, list various inputs in the text of the optional input:
- Some, like
CharacteristicClasses :: CSM, add a separate entry for each possible value:
The extra "default value ProjectiveDegree" here doesn't look right, but perhaps we can add new syntax for making a list of admissible values for each optional input. - I think I've seen other styles, which I'll add as I come across.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Review the existing gb and CharacteristicClasses :: CSM documentation examples first, comparing how optional-input values are currently presented. Done means the project has an agreed convention or syntax for admissible values, with the relevant examples updated to follow it.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100